Fake mains

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see he's sold 4 sets in the last 6 months
Hope those riders don't have very nasty surprises!
 
I would imagine they are using superblend manufacturing technology. I don't know of any manufacturer who is not using it today.

Clearly not a FAG bearing but since FAG bearings are now being manufactured all over the world -even China - then who knows what your getting. Jim

FAG manufacturing plants
Fake mains
 
Great piece of detective work Jim and Dave!

But

How can you tell???

The only thing I saw was the letters "PT" is that the key here?
 
Despite the 'Superblend' size being made worldwide the only Factory in the world that make that spec is in India - and yes, FAG has factory's all over the world and they only get the correct spec bearing made in one factory, their factory in India, feel free to ask them!

They analyse many fake bearing and in many cases there is only one way to tell if it is a fake, not surprising they did not tell me how they can tell, even if copied they could still tell apparently.
 
'Fake mains' :?: :? As far as I can see these main bearings are not advertised as genuine FAG main bearings so I'd rather call them alternative main bearings and as long as these are made by the right specs and quality it doesn't matter where in the world they are produced. However I won't be the first one to give them a try :wink:
 
nortonspeed said:
'Fake mains' :? As far as I can see these main bearings are not advertised as genuine FAG main bearings so I'd rather call them alternative main bearings and as long as these are made by the right specs and quality it doesn't matter where in the world they are produced. However I won't be the first one to give them a try :wink:


Exactly. In order for them to be 'fake' they'd have to be marked or advertised as manufactured by FAG.

'Superblend' was just a name given to the R&M/RHP 6/MRJA30 main bearing which 'stuck' (as it sounded good).

So they're just cheap NJ306EMC3 bearings.
 
madass140 said:
they are C3

L.A.B. said:
nortonspeed said:
'Fake mains' :? As far as I can see these main bearings are not advertised as genuine FAG main bearings so I'd rather call them alternative main bearings and as long as these are made by the right specs and quality it doesn't matter where in the world they are produced. However I won't be the first one to give them a try :wink:


Exactly. In order for them to be 'fake' they'd have to be marked or advertised as manufactured by FAG.
snip
So they're just cheap NJ306EMC3 bearings.

I see no markings as C3 and no proof otherwise as such. I have unfortunately gotten a few sets of FAG that were sold through various north american norton supply chain that clearly were not C3. Conversely I have now bought several sets of NTN, packaged, labeled, and installation verified as C3 and now running successfully in several engines.
How many people even know how to judge if they are C3??? Try and do a dial indicator crank end play measurement. If you can slide the crank back and forth easily by hand, it is probably OK. If it drags and you must "assist" the movement with a screwdriver or pinch bar then it is a std clearance. I have been fooled enough times and refuse to use bearings that are tight.

The NTN/Bower bearings are under $70 each , marked and perform correctly as C3.

Late production FAG are finally marked on the package AND on the bearing. Early FAG evades my ability to detect clearance from markings and on late norton cranks the FAG take-offs are not marked with an identifier I can decipher. They do perform as C3.

Most american norton sources charge about $120 ea. AN is much cheaper for the norton/C3 FAG.

Not sure I want to be the guinea pig for the zeus NJ306EMC3. Let us hear the results of the end play test?
 
That's a great tip dd!

I got mine from RGM and can confirm they passed your end float test.

With good and trustworthy suppliers like AN, RGM etc, I just do not understand why anyone would risk buying something like this from anywhere else.

Why put yourself at such a greater risk just to try and save a few $/£ ?

It's false economy par excellence IMHO.
 
dynodave said:
I see no markings as C3 and no proof otherwise as such.


I only typed C3 as that's how they were described. The discussion being more to do with 'fake' bearings, not that anyone here is likely to buy those bearings anyway, C3 or not.
 
Just a note on how durable and forgiving the FAG bearing is.

I do use c3 clearance bearings in the race motors I build, but...

The bearings in my 92mm stroke 924cc injected street bike are the originals that came in the bike when new. They have well over 100,000 miles on them. They are NOT c3 clearance bearings.

Last time I rebuilt the motor I transferred the crank and bearings to a pair of NOS cases. I literally had to screw the crankshaft into the bearings with considerable pressure -they were that tight.

Now with another 40,000 hard miles on them they are still working fine. I will be heading out at the end of the month for my annual LOP and Barbers trip and I am not worried about them in the least.

It makes little difference once the engine is up to operating temperature. At 300 F. there is no longer any crush on the bearing, so any bearing is going to have plenty of clearance. Jim.
 
Jim,
You are the last person on the planet that I would chose to argue with, unless it was about something along the lines of whether to use dry rub or marinade on baby back ribs. But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.

Russ

PS - I marinade mine
 
rvich said:
But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.

very-tight-main-bearings-t23605.html#p310203
Perhaps this one where Joe said......?

ZFD said:
.....Quite a few years ago now Mick Hemmings and my local engine man Rudi noticed- independently- that the original spec was too tight all of a sudden so cranks would not turn in the crankcase. My layman explanation is that with improved manufacturing methods bearing manufacturers moved to the bottom of the clearance scale specified in DIN for the bearing. Hence we have since supplied C3 spec. Needless to say nobody else complained....
 
rvich said:
Jim,
You are the last person on the planet that I would chose to argue with, unless it was about something along the lines of whether to use dry rub or marinade on baby back ribs. But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.

Russ

PS - I marinade mine

I really don't know the spec on the original bearings, but I can say for sure that they are tighter than the modern c3 replacement.

I say that because:

Maney and SRM cases have a little more crush on the mains than the average OEM case.

Used OEM bearings and modern non-c3 bearings used in those cases will not allow you to install the crank without heating the cases a little [~150F.]. Modern c3 bearings will allow the crank to drop right in cold.

Which is better??? Beats me.

I marinate also...Jim
 
L.A.B. said:
rvich said:
But I remember a thread in the distant past in which I finally grasped the concept that bearings manufactured in the 1970s already had C3 clearances (without that designation) due to the state of the industry's capabilities. I have no clue if this is accurate, it is just what I took away from the conversation.

very-tight-main-bearings-t23605.html#p310203
Perhaps this one where Joe said......?

ZFD said:
.....Quite a few years ago now Mick Hemmings and my local engine man Rudi noticed- independently- that the original spec was too tight all of a sudden so cranks would not turn in the crankcase. My layman explanation is that with improved manufacturing methods bearing manufacturers moved to the bottom of the clearance scale specified in DIN for the bearing. Hence we have since supplied C3 spec. Needless to say nobody else complained....

Actually the thread where the light bulb finally lit up for me was here:

topic-t11403.html?hilit=C3%20tolerance

Which may have little bearing on this thread, but since the tolerances for what are discussed are fairly loose it may fall within specification!
 
The bearings mentioned on Ebay have different markings than the ones pictured, The actual bearings he supplies are marked C3 and they
are made in China. I did an extensive search of the manufacturer FEB and came up zero.
 
I just had a look at a set of FAG superblends I have for my bottom end. They are made in India. this is whats etched into the outer race......
FAG X-life (could be X- lite) NJ306EM1 INDIA K323 - 211059
JUG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top